06/10/07 "ICH"
--- - On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an
hour and a half-long press conference which was attended by many
members of the world media. The contents of that meeting---in
which Putin answered all questions concerning nuclear
proliferation, human rights, Kosovo, democracy and the present
confrontation with the United States over missile defense in
Europe---have been completely censored by the press. Apart from
one brief excerpt which appeared in a Washington Post editorial,
(and which was used to criticize Putin) the press conference has
been scrubbed from the public record. It never happened. (Read
the entire press conference archived here )

Putin’s performance was a tour de force. He fielded all of the
questions however misleading or insulting. He was candid and
statesmanlike and demonstrated a good understanding of all the
main issues.

The meeting gave Putin a chance to give his side of the story in
the growing debate over missile defense in Eastern Europe. He
offered a brief account of the deteriorating state of US-Russian
relations since the end of the Cold War, and particularly from
9-11 to present. Since September 11, the Bush administration has
carried out an aggressive strategy to surround Russia with
military bases, install missiles on its borders, topple allied
regimes in Central Asia, and incite political upheaval in Moscow
through US-backed “pro-democracy” groups. These openly hostile
actions have convinced many Russian hard-liners that the
administration is going forward with the neocon plan for “regime
change” in Moscow and fragmentation of the Russian Federation.
Putin’s testimony suggests that the hardliners are probably
right.

The Bush administration’s belligerent foreign policy has backed
the Kremlin into a corner and forced Putin to take retaliatory
measures. He has no other choice.

If we want to understand why relations between Russia are
quickly reaching the boiling-point; we only need to review the
main developments since the end of the Cold War. Political
analyst Pat Buchanan gives a good rundown of these in his
article “Doesn’t
Putin Have a Point?”

Buchanan says:

“Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from Eastern
Europe voluntarily, and Moscow felt it had an understanding we
would not move NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only
did we bring Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania,
and Estonia, and virtually the whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO
right on Mother Russia's front porch. Now, there is a scheme
afoot to bring in Ukraine and Georgia in the Caucasus, the
birthplace of Stalin.

Second, America backed a pipeline to deliver Caspian Sea oil
from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, to bypass Russia.

Third, though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the
old Soviet republics for the liberation of Afghanistan, we now
seem hell-bent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.

Fourth, though Bush sold missile defense as directed at rogue
states like North Korea, we now learn we are going to put
anti-missile systems into Eastern Europe. And against whom are
they directed?

Fifth, through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and
Democratic auxiliaries, and tax-exempt think tanks, foundations,
and "human rights" institutes such as Freedom House, headed by
ex-CIA director James Woolsey, we have been fomenting regime
change in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics, and
Russia herself.

U.S.-backed revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine, and
Georgia, but failed in Belarus. Moscow has now legislated
restrictions on the foreign agencies that it sees, not without
justification, as subversive of pro-Moscow regimes.

Sixth, America conducted 78 days of bombing of Serbia for the
crime of fighting to hold on to her rebellious province, Kosovo,
and for refusing to grant NATO marching rights through her
territory to take over that province. Mother Russia has always
had a maternal interest in the Orthodox states of the Balkans.

These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a small point?”

Yes--as Buchanan opines---Putin does have a point, which is why
his press conference was suppressed. The media would rather
demonize Putin, than allow him to make his case to the public.
(The same is true of other world leaders who choose to use their
vast resources to improve the lives of their own citizens rather
that hand them over to the transnational oil giants; such as,
Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez) Even so, NATO has not yet
endorsed the neocon missile defense plan and, according to
recent surveys, public opinion in Poland and the Czech Republic
is overwhelmingly against it.

Unsurprisingly, the Bush administration is going ahead
regardless of the controversy.

Putin cannot allow the United States to deploy its missile
defense system to Eastern Europe. The system poses a direct
threat to Russia’s national security. If Putin planned to deploy
a similar system in Cuba or Mexico, the Bush administration
would immediately invoke the Monroe Doctrine and threaten to
remove it by force. No one doubts this. And no one should doubt
that Putin is equally determined to protect his own country’s
interests in the same way. We can expect that Russia will now
aim its missiles at European targets and rework its foreign
policy in a way that compels the US to abandon its current
plans.

The media has tried to minimize the dangers of the proposed
system. The Washington Post even characterized it as “a small
missile defense system” which has set off “waves of paranoia
about domestic and foreign opponents”.

Nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As Putin said at the press conference, “Once the missile defense
system is put in place IT WILL WORK AUTOMATICALLY WITH THE
ENTIRE NUCLEAR CAPABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES. It will be an
integral part of the US nuclear capability.

“For the first time in history---and I want to emphasize
this---there are elements of the US nuclear capability on the
European continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of
international security…..Of course, we have to respond to that.”

Putin is right. The “so-called” defense system is actually an
expansion (and integration) of America’s existing nuclear
weapons system which will now function as one unit. The dangers
of this should be obvious.

The Bush administration is maneuvering in a way that will allow
it to achieve what Nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle,
calls the “longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike
against Russia”.

In Boyle’s article “US Missiles in Europe: Beyond Deterrence to
First Strike Threat” he states:

“By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear
forces would be taken out. Namely, the United States Government
believes that with the deployment of a facially successful first
strike capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."…
This has been analyzed ad nauseam in the professional
literature. But especially by one of Harvard's premier
warmongers in chief, Thomas Schelling --winner of the Nobel
Prize in Economics granted by the Bank of Sweden-- who developed
the term "compellence" and distinguished it from "deterrence."
…The USG is breaking out of a "deterrence" posture and moving
into a "compellence" posture. (Global Research 6-6-07)

That’s right. The real goal is to force Moscow to conform to
Washington’s “diktats” or face the prospect of “first-strike”
annihilation. That’s why Putin has expressed growing concern
over the administration’s dropping out of the ABM Treaty and the
development of a new regime of low yield, bunker-busting nuclear
weapons. The “hawks” who surround Bush have abandoned the
“deterrence” policy of the past, and now believe that a nuclear
war can be “won” by the United States. This is madness and it
needs to be taken seriously.

The Bush administration sees itself as a main player in Central
Asia and the Middle East---controlling vital resources and
pipeline corridors throughout the region. That means Russia’s
influence will have to be diminished. Boris Yeltsin was the
perfect leader for the neoconservative master-plan (which is why
the right-wingers Praised him when he died) Russia disintegrated
under Yeltsin. He oversaw the dismantling of the state, the
plundering of its resources and state-owned assets, and the
restructuring of its economy according to the tenets of
neoliberalism.

No wonder the neocons loved him.

Under Putin, Russia has regained its economic footing, its
regional influence and its international prestige. The economy
is booming, the ruble has stabilized, the standard of living has
risen, and Moscow has strengthened alliances with its neighbors.
This new-found Russian prosperity poses a real challenge to
Bush’s plans.

Two actions in particular have changed the Russian-US
relationship from tepid to openly hostile. The first was when
Putin announced that Russia’s four largest oil fields would not
be open to foreign development. (Russia has been consolidating
its oil wealth under state-run Gazprom) And, second, when the
Russian Treasury began to convert Russia’s dollar reserves into
gold and rubles. Both of these are regarded as high-crimes by US
corporate chieftains and western elites. Their response was
swift.

John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR) task force which concocted the basic
pretext for an all-out assault on the Putin. This is where the
idea that Putin is “rolling back democracy” began; it’s a feeble
excuse for political antagonism. In their article “Russia’s
Wrong Direction”, Edwards and Kemp state that a “strategic
partnership” with Russia is no longer possible. They note that
the government has become increasingly “authoritarian” and that
the society is growing less “open and pluralistic”. Blah, blah,
blah. No one in the Washington really cares about democracy.
(Just look at our “good friends” in Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan,
Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan) What they’re afraid of is Putin
ditching the dollar and controlling his own oil. That’s what
counts. Bush also wants Putin to support sanctions against Iran
and rubber stamp a Security Council resolution to separate
Kosovo form Serbia. (Since when does the UN have the right to
redraw national borders? Was the creation of Israel such a
stunning success that the Security Council wants to try its luck
again?)

Putin does not accept the “unipolar” world model. As he said in
Munich, the unipolar world refers to “a world in which there is
one master, one sovereign---- one centre of authority, one
centre of force, one centre of decision-making. At the end of
the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this
system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys
itself from within.… What is even more important is that the
model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be
no moral foundations for modern civilization.”

He added:

“Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not
resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human
tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for
yourselves---wars as well as local and regional conflicts have
not diminished. More are dying than before. Significantly more,
significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force
– military force – in international relations, force that is
plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic
principles of international law. And independent legal norms
are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one
state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and
foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders
in every way. This is visible in the economic, political,
cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations.
Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to
resolve a given question according to so-called issues of
political expediency, based on the current political climate.
And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the
fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one
feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is
like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a
policy stimulates an arms race.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we
must seriously think about the architecture of global security.”

How can anyone dispute Putin’s analysis?

“Unilateral and illegitimate military actions”, the “uncontained
hyper-use of force”, the “disdain for the basic principles of
international law”, and most importantly; “No one feels safe!”

These are the irrefutable facts. Putin has simply summarized the
Bush Doctrine better than anyone else.

The Bush administration has increased its frontline American
bases to five thousand men on Russia’s perimeter. Is this
conduct of a “trustworthy ally”?

Also, NATO has deployed forces on Russia’s borders even while
Putin has continued to fulfill his treaty obligations and move
troops and military equipment hundreds of miles away.

As Putin said on Tuesday: “We have removed all of our heavy
weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the
Urals” and “reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken
several other steps required by the Adapted Conventional Armed
Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF). But what have we seen in
response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new
military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and
there are two new missile launch areas -- a radar in Czech
republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking
ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming
unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like
to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe.
On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons
systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.”

(This is why Putin’s comments did not appear in the western
media! They would have been too damaging to the Bush
administration and their expansionist plans)

Who Destroyed the ABM?

Putin said:

“We did not initiate the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty. But what response did we give when we discussed
this issue with our American partners? We said that we do not
have the resources and desire to establish such a system. But as
professionals we both understand that a missile defense system
for one side and no such a system for the other creates an
illusion of security and increases the possibility of a nuclear
conflict. The defense system WILL DESTROY THE STRATEGIC
EQUILIBRIUM IN THE WORLD. In order to restore that balance
without setting up a missile defense system we will have to
create a system to overcome missile defense, which is what we
are doing now.”

Putin: “AN ARMS RACE IS UNFOLDING. Was it we who withdrew from
the ABM Treaty? We must react to what our partners do. We
already told them two years ago, “don’t do this, you don’t need
to do this. What are you doing? YOU ARE DESTROYING THE SYSTEM OF
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY. You must understand that you are forcing
us to take retaliatory steps.” …we warned them. No, they did not
listen to us. Then we heard about them developing low-yield
nuclear weapons and they are continuing to develop these
weapons.” We told them that “it would be better to look for
other ways to fight terrorism than create low-yield nuclear
weapons and lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and
thereby put humankind on the brink of nuclear catastrophe. But
they don’t listen to us. They are not looking for compromise.
Their entire point of view can be summed-up in one sentence:
‘Whoever is not with us is against us.’”

Putin asks, “So what should we do?” The present predicament has
brought us “the brink of disaster”.

Putin: “Some people have the illusion that you can do everything
just as you want, regardless of the interests of other people.
Of course it is for precisely this reason that the international
situation gets worse and eventually results in an arms race as
you pointed out. But we are not the instigators. We do not want
it. Why would we want to divert resources to this? And we are
not jeopardizing our relations with anyone. But we must respond.

Name even one step that we have taken or one action of ours
designed to worsen the situation. There are none. We are not
interested in that. We are interested in having a good
atmosphere, environment and energy dialogue around Russia”.

So, what should Putin do? And how else can he meet his
responsibilities to the Russian people without taking defensive
“retaliatory” action to Bush’s act of war. By expanding its
nuclear capability to Europe, all of Russia is in imminent
danger, and so, Putin must decide “precisely which means will be
used to destroy the installations that our experts believe
represent a potential threat for the Russian Federation”. (Note
that Putin NEVER THREATENS TO AIM HIS MISSILES AT EUROPEAN
CITIES AS WAS REPORTED IN THE WESTERN MEDIA)

Putin has made great strides in improving life for the Russian
people. That is why his public approval rating is soaring at
75%. The Russian economy has been growing by 7% a year. He’s
lowered the number of people living beneath the poverty-line by
more than half and will bring it down to European levels by
2010. Real incomes are growing by an astonishing 12% per year.
As Putin says, “Combating poverty is one of our top priorities
and we still have to do a lot to improve our pension system too
because the correlation between pensions and the average wage is
still lower here than in Europe.”

If only that was true in America!

Russia now has the ninth largest economy in the world and has
amassed enormous gold and currency reserves--the third largest
in the world. It is also one of the leading players in
international energy policy with a daily-oil output which now
exceeds Saudi Arabia. It is also the largest producer of natural
gas in the world. Russia will only get stronger as we get deeper
into the century and energy resources become scarcer.

Putin strongly objects to the idea that he is not committed to
human rights or is “rolling back democracy”. He points out how
truncheon-wielding police in Europe routinely use tear gas,
electric-shock devices and water cannons to disperse
demonstrators. Is that how the West honors human rights and
civil liberties?

As for the Bush administration---Putin produced a copy of
Amnesty International’s yearly report condemning the United
States conduct in the war on terror. “I have a copy of Amnesty
International’s report here, which includes a section on the
United States,” he said. “The organization has concluded that
the United States IS NOW THE PRINCIPLE VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS
AND FREEDOMS WORLDWIDE.”

He added, “We have a proverb in Russian, ‘Don’t blame the mirror
if your face is crooked.’”

Putin is fiercely nationalistic. He has helped to restore
Russia’s self-confidence and rebuild the economy. He’s
demonstrated a willingness to compromise with the Bush
administration on every substantive issue, but he has been
repeatedly rebuffed. The last thing he wants is a nuclear
standoff with the United States. But he will do what he must to
defend his people from the threat of foreign attack. The
deployment of the missile defense system will require that
Russia develop its own new weapons systems and change its
thinking about trusting the United States. Friendship is not
possible in the present climate.

As for “democracy”; Putin said it best himself:

“Am I a ‘pure democrat’? (laughs) Of course I am, absolutely.
The problem is that I’m all alone---the only one of my kind in
the whole wide world. Just look at what’s happening in North
America, it’s simply awful---torture, homeless people,
Guantanamo, people detained without trial and investigation.
Just look at what’s happening in Europe---harsh treatment of
demonstrators, rubber bullets and tear gas used first in one
capital then in another, demonstrators killed on the streets…..
I have no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi died.”

Comment
Guidelines Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story. We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
 those including personal
attacks and profanity  are
not permitted.
See our complete Comment
Policy anduse
this link to notify usif you
have concerns about a comment.
Well promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
postings.

In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)